Nikola Tesla. One of the greatest minds of the 20th century. He devised plans for worldwide peace, had invented hundreds of inventions, and fathered no children. Why? Because he was a firm believer in eugenics, and did not believe he was good enough to carry on his genes to the next generation.

Now, if Nikola Tesla wasn’t good enough to reproduce, where does that leave most of human society? In the sphere of inferiority.

As all biologists will tell you, evolution is the slow process of adaptation and weeding out of those that can’t survive. In our first world society, where almost anyone can breed and have children this is a setback. To insure the survival of our species, we need to test every new generation for susceptibility to disease, intelligence, and muscle gain. By sterilizing those who are weak in all three areas, we will insure that the next generation is smarter, stronger, and less likely to die from disease.

Now the most foreseeable problem with this, is that it takes away the freedom to bear children. However, if sterilized women or men want to raise children, they can easily do so as a babysitter or a professional nanny.

By limiting the amount of people that can have children, this world will have a good start on stopping overpopulation. There is also a new argument against racism, because if you exist in this future and can have children, then you are not inferior. Also, the fact that there is diversity in this future proves that all “races” are equal.

By eliminating the issue of overpopulation, we can give more aid to those who need it. Education and healthcare will be available to more, and crime will go down as well. If this future is enacted, we’re looking at a society of intellectuals with plentiful resources and with little violence. This was the vision of 20th century eugenicists, without the arrogance of racism and racial superiority or the idea that white people would dominate everyone else.

This ideal world is the human dream. Evidence of this can be seen in many different religious doctrines as ascension from one form to another. Whether judeo-christian or pagan, or atheist, or Buddhist, living in a higher plane of being is one of the main attractions. This is also why immigrants came to North America, and why barbarians conquered other civilizations. This is why democracy and communism and ignorance and fascism were created, so that people could live in a perfect world, and that perfect world isn’t going to be created by violence and hatred, it’s going to be created by higher human beings.

The cost of this perfect world is small. Compulsory sterilization for those that fail the tests and obedience. But, with a few speeches and the knowledge that they’re putting future generations ahead of themselves I believe that loyalty will be easy to gain.

No longer will one people take advantage of the rest in this world of scholars and doctors. No more will education have to choose between two students, and no longer will anyone be left behind.
In this perfect world of perfect humans, there will be enough food for everyone, because of the current rate we’re farming now. Jails and prisons will be similar to Norway, meaning rehabilitation over punishment, and in a few thousand years, perhaps the average Intelligence Quotient will be 120 instead of 100, because links have been found between genes and Intelligence Quotient.

As the future looms in the distance, I see my home and planet in the hands of these versatile supermen, where resources are spent researching technology to further improve the human condition instead of nuclear death fleets.

I also see an alternate future in the hands of our children. There is still war, and struggles, but the world does improve, just at a slower more primitive pace. Progress is never halted until our extinction.

Problem: 60-80% of the population would be considered 'inferior' by any thorough tests, which'd lead to under population for any country trying this. to have a country you need people, to have a powerful country you need more people doing more diverse jobs. on a second note the reverse of mgb519's statement also works. The final nail in the coffin is that if the majority of the population is in the red-zone for this, why would they go along with it? we as a species really don't like having people with authority over us unless it suits us and when it doesn't we don't go along with it.

dilanski wrote:Problem: 60-80% of the population would be considered 'inferior' by any thorough tests, which'd lead to under population for any country trying this. to have a country you need people, to have a powerful country you need more people doing more diverse jobs. on a second note the reverse of mgb519's statement also works. The final nail in the coffin is that if the majority of the population is in the red-zone for this, why would they go along with it? we as a species really don't like having people with authority over us unless it suits us and when it doesn't we don't go along with it.

Well, the thing is, I know it's bullshit. I wrote it in an afternoon and made it ridiculous to prove a point that it doesn't matter if your speech is full of shit or not. I saw a girl try to say that indie bitches are better than hipster bitches in her speech, my friend try to convince people that violent video games are bad(and even worse, the sources for this speech came from articles written to appeal to middle aged, strict and religous housewives) and a weird kid trying to tell us the story of potato chips.

dilanski wrote:Problem: 60-80% of the population would be considered 'inferior' by any thorough tests, which'd lead to under population for any country trying this. to have a country you need people, to have a powerful country you need more people doing more diverse jobs. on a second note the reverse of mgb519's statement also works. The final nail in the coffin is that if the majority of the population is in the red-zone for this, why would they go along with it? we as a species really don't like having people with authority over us unless it suits us and when it doesn't we don't go along with it.

Well, the thing is, I know it's bullshit. I wrote it in an afternoon and made it ridiculous to prove a point that it doesn't matter if your speech is full of shit or not. I saw a girl try to say that indie bitches are better than hipster bitches in her speech, my friend try to convince people that violent video games are bad(and even worse, the sources for this speech came from articles written to appeal to middle aged, strict and religous housewives) and a weird kid trying to tell us the story of potato chips.

Anyways, I think my best mark was 16/20(because I was being awkward).

I've come to believe that no matter how retarded an argument or belief is, someone out there believes it and many people will probably agree with me, but as a result, with the right setting you can make even the most astute people believe you're an intellectual genius or the most mis-guided un-informed idiot to walk the earth.

Funny thing is, I was talking to my friends about stuff like this a week or so ago. We just thought we should sterilize the stupid people, as to lower the population drop, and then the smart people would be able to have freedom from the stupid people, and be able to develop cures for any disease the new, smarter humanity might be susceptible to.

As the mother of all experiments, it would be interesting to (hypothetically and ignoring political and social implications) split up humanity into two separate groups the 'superior' and the 'inferior' based on IQ, Fitness and Personality. Give them limited contact between them and see how the two separate groups develop over time, in terms of the society the establish, the social interactions, beliefs and over time if they evolve in different ways presuming the environmental differneces between the groups were negligible. More importantly, some might add, which has the best pr0n.

dilanski wrote:I've come to believe that no matter how retarded an argument or belief is, someone out there believes it and many people will probably agree with me, but as a result, with the right setting you can make even the most astute people believe you're an intellectual genius or the most mis-guided un-informed idiot to walk the earth.

My advice: Don't take anything too seriously. Unless that thing has a gun.

Plus, this ideal society has the same weakness of old marxism. It has to involve the entire world, or it won't work.

dilanski wrote:Problem: 60-80% of the population would be considered 'inferior' by any thorough tests, which'd lead to under population for any country trying this. to have a country you need people, to have a powerful country you need more people doing more diverse jobs. on a second note the reverse of mgb519's statement also works. The final nail in the coffin is that if the majority of the population is in the red-zone for this, why would they go along with it? we as a species really don't like having people with authority over us unless it suits us and when it doesn't we don't go along with it.

Well, the thing is, I know it's bullshit. I wrote it in an afternoon and made it ridiculous to prove a point that it doesn't matter if your speech is full of shit or not.

This is as I suspected.

Tzan wrote:

Semaj Nagirrac wrote:Well, I took some land without checking if it was owned by a faction or not. I'm not going to be banned, am I? I can destroy everything if need be.